AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 108

Chapter 5

Comments Received

5.1. The Law Commission has issued a working paper on the aforesaid aspects and the following comments were received. The commission is grateful for the response.

5.2. The High Courts1 had no comments to offer'. The Law Departments of three State Governments2 agreed with the proposed amendments. The Incorporated Law Society of Calcutta3 had suggested the incorporation of clause (d) in the proposed sub-section (3) of section 25A that where the promisor is the Government, the promise should have been made by an authorised officer of the Government. The Society also indicated that a sub-section (4) may be added that the doctrine of promissory estoppel shall not be available in any other case except those provided for. When the Government is the promisor, the promise is deemed to be made by a competent officer on behalf of the Government. Hence, the Law Commission is not recommending that such a provision should be made.

1. Law Commission File No. 2(2)/84-L.C., S. No. 3(R).

2. Law Commission File No. 2(2)/84-L.C., S. No. 7(R).

3. Law Commission File No. 2(2)/84-L.C., S. No. 5(R). 5.3. The Law Commission has given full consideration to the views expressed. The Law Commission accordingly makes recommendations set out in Chapter 6.



Promissory Estoppel Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys